Very biased, obviously, I just think we have been to the well enough times to get a good spread of potentially good young talent, that will mature together. Hopefully, results can be seen in the next year or two.

When I was 14, I joined an under 18s team in the country. It was the first time the club had fielded a thirds team in years. Almost everyone in the team was about 14.

The first year we lost every game by over 200 points. The next year, we made the final five (not a huge league). The third year, we lost in the GF. The next year, when we were all circa 18, we won the GF against the team to whom we'd lost previously.

Nah not really. They have next to no midfield quality bar Watson. Zaharakis & Hocking look like they can be players as well, but are still a fair bit off being A grade.

They have a few decent talls, but they always seem to be getting hurt. I can't see where the improvement is going to come from, unless they unearth about a dozen potential 200 gamers in the next couple of years. Unlikely to happen IMO.

2 of the sides have something approaching a forward line for the next 5 years, Ess & Rich.
1 of the sides has something approaching a midfield for the next 5 years, North.
2 of the sides have something approaching a backline for the next 5 years, Melb & North.
2 of the sides have something approaching a ruck division for the next 5 years, Ess & Nth Melb.

Seriously, none of these sides have won a final since what, 06/07.
Firmly in the "who knows" basket.

Essendon - I think have the most areas covered over the ground in terms of youth. It is just dependant on whether these players can develop enough to be a premiership side together. I don't think Essendon need to hit the draft too hard in the next few years as they currently have enough young talent on the list, it is simply going to be a wait and see job over the next probably 2 seasons to see if the likes of Heppell, Melksham and Zaharakis can develop into a decent midfield, whether Hurley and Carlisle up forward and Pears and Hooker down back is good enough.

Richmond - This is where it depends on your view of what it takes to be a premiership side. There is no doubt in my mind that their top 4 of Martin, Deledio, Cotchin and Riewoldt is the best top 4 of any of these clubs. I also don't mind the 2nd tier down that they are starting to develop with Batchelor, Conca and the like. It is probably the last 4-6 players in their best 22 each week that are the issue. Can they carry a couple of below-average players to a premiership? It's possible, but I doubt it. Still, they are only maybe 2 more youngsters really coming on, and then getting lucky/good recruiting with maybe a good mature age recruit or 2 in the rookie draft from being a good shot at it.

Melbourne - Looking at Melbourne's list, I don't mind it at all, but they are just a bit further behind. Deny it or not, the Scully loss sets them back a year or two. I like some of the pieces that Melbourne have, but I just don't see it coming together just yet. Their midfield has a future gun in Trengove and a very solid player in Moloney with a good ruckman in Jamar, but the midfield isn't all worked out yet. They have a nice structure up forward with Clark, Watts and Jurrah, and I'm quite a Petterd fan, but it just hasn't all clicked together yet. The backline is probably their closest to developed revolving around Frawley. In terms of young players good enough to fit in a premiership side, I feel that they are about Essendon of two years ago. However I also feel that their top-line level talent of youngsters is better than Essendon's of two years ago. I feel that they need to hit the draft for probably the next two years, and they can certainly do that successfully with Viney coming and the 2 scully compo picks, and in a few years they will be able to start their rise, and imo be the most dangerous of this lot.

North - I just don't see it with them. North fans may feel free to ridicule me over this, but I just don't see their time coming. I feel that they will probably finish the highest out of this lot for the next year or two because they have the better experienced players in Petrie, Harvey, Swallow, Wells and the like. And they also have a few of the better younger guys in here, such as Ziebell and Goldstein. But I really don't see the depth coming through. Their list right now is genuinely quite competitive and certainly has the ability to finish about 6-7th and possibly win a final, but I think that's the ceiling for them. Their depth of youngsters just doesnt do it for me. Is this due to a poor knowledge of their list on my part/ a few young guys on their list that they have unearthed yet? Potentially, yes. My the likes of Warren, Wright and this sort doesn't overly impress me.

Overall, and with a tinge of biased, I see Essendon as the first team of this lot to have a genuine shot, as they have most positions on the ground covered. But like I said, this is completely dependant on how the youngsters come on as to whether they are a chance. I have Richmond a very close 2nd, with the ability to leap-frog Essendon with a few quality mature age recruits. I have Melbourne 3rd, I think they are just a year or 2 behind Essendon and Richmond, but when it comes their turn they will challenge harder than the other 2. Just worried that they might coincide with GC/GWS. And I have North 4th as I unfortunately just don't see it for them.

So Essendon aren't as good as Melbourne, Richmond or North Melbourne, because we don't have as good a midfield as them, yet we were the ones who beat Geelong, who have a top 2 midfield at worst, and arguably the best midfield in the comp? We also easily defeated one of the opponents, and we're also the team who finished inside the top 8 last year out of the four sides selected, yet we're not as good as the others? Nice work HAD

Richmond have the best top shelf talent by far (Martin, Cotchin, Deledio, Rewoldt) with Vickery looking like a likely prospect, but the rest of their list drops off significantly after that in terms of quality. It's mediocre at best, and building to a premiership takes more then just 3 or 4 stars performing every week.

Essendon have one of the weaker midfields in the comp on paper. Watson is really carrying the team in a lot of ways because I don't see much upside in Howlett, Melksham, Prismall, McVeigh etc. After Watson who is a gun inside ball winner, the best of the rest would probadly be guys like Stanton, Hocking, Heppell and Zaharakis. They do have some very good talls with Hurley leading the way, but I don't the Dons seriously competing for a premiership with the state of their midfield.

Melbourne and North don't have the star power of Richmond or some of the talls of Essendon but they do have a more even spread of young talent that is showing improvement all the time. Both sides have very good ruck stocks, good midfield depth and some decent developing KPs. Overall, I feel Melbourne and North are in the best position to pounce in the next 5 or so years.

All 4 will have to show alot more before knowing if they'll make the leap into Top 4/Flag contention.

My opinion (and obviously I know more about the Roos than the others) is that Essendon and North have a better chance followed by Richmond (couple of young guns will help drive the midfield) then Melbourne (just don't see any star power needed to win consistently.

Nah not really. They have next to no midfield quality bar Watson. Zaharakis & Hocking look like they can be players as well, but are still a fair bit off being A grade.

Click to expand...

Stanton's vastly under-rated. Still.
He's Essendon's 2nd or 3rd best; would be Melbourne's best, North's 2nd best and Richmond's 3rd best midfielder. Year in, year out.
Cue "oh but X, Y, Z will all be better, in year 2XYZ... elite yabber yabber Boooed blah blah".
How he gets constantly over-looked baffles me, but generally tells you who is and who isn't worth listening to - and who is merely going off 2nd hand opinions.

Very good player is very good; and very much closer to "elite" than 95% of the league.

So Essendon aren't as good as Melbourne, Richmond or North Melbourne, because we don't have as good a midfield as them, yet we were the ones who beat Geelong, who have a top 2 midfield at worst, and arguably the best midfield in the comp? We also easily defeated one of the opponents, and we're also the team who finished inside the top 8 last year out of the four sides selected, yet we're not as good as the others? Nice work HAD

Click to expand...

One win doesn't mean anything when talking about a flag. Good teams play well over the entire season.

By your rationale You beat Geelong and we beat you so North > Geelong

Plus Geelong pants Pies in 1 game so North > Geelong and Pies

The OP is referring to the next couple of years not isolated matched 12 months ago. It about depth and where the clubs are heading not where they've been.

Stanton's vastly under-rated. Still.
He's Essendon's 2nd or 3rd best; would be Melbourne's best, North's 2nd best and Richmond's 3rd best midfielder. Year in, year out.
Cue "oh but X, Y, Z will all be better, in year 2XYZ... elite yabber yabber Boooed blah blah".
How he gets constantly over-looked baffles me, but generally tells you who is and who isn't worth listening to - and who is merely going off 2nd hand opinions.

Very good player is very good; and very much closer to "elite" than 95% of the league.

Click to expand...

Stanton is good, but closer to elite than 95% of the league would signify he is a top 40 player in the comp. Don't see that personally, though I would say he is somewhere in the top 100 players in the comp.

I think a premiership midfield will usually have 10+ quality players who can rotate through the middle. Usually at minimum 2 A graders, and the rest are either good or very good players. A good mix of inside and outside players are required. Essendon have 1 A grader in Watson, and maybe 3 or 4 good or very good players who can play in the middle ( Zaharakis, Hocking & Stanton ). Need at least another 6 or 7 quality mids to come into the mix to be in premiership contention.

When we get through a year without needing to dip into battlers like McVeigh, Prismall, NLM, arguably Lonergan (I'm 50/50 on him) in the middle, we will be 2-3 wins better off.
That is where we fell down last year. That's where Melksham, Colyer need to step up and be much more competitive, much more often.

I really doubt Geelong would be *all* that different. They've got Bartel in the forward line, and Duncan comes back - but after them they've got what... Christensen, Stokes, Varcoe, Enright into midfield full-time? Talented, but you'd hardly call them legit midfielders.
Ling & Ottens were their plan B midfielders. You'd suggest they'll find replacements sooner rather than later, but still up in the air IMHO.

I'm going to do this by the numbers, so I try and take any bias out of it:

Here are the sides, broken down into players in the following ranges; 100+ games, 50-100 games, and 25+ games.

Essendon are 9/10/8
North are 6/7/11
Richmond are 5/10/6
Melbourne are 8/10/6

I read this as follows:

The teams rely on their experienced players in this order: Essendon, Melbourne, North, Richmond.

The teams have quality players yet to establish themselves in this order: Essendon, Melbourne, Richmond, North.

The teams have youth potential in this order: North, Essendon, Richmond, Melbourne.

However that is ignoring the players themselves. Looking at those players in regards to how many years they have left in that is probably useful. I'll go through the sides and list guys who are near best 22 for their teams (played 10+ games last year, or were established before and were injured in 2011) and have around 5 or more years left in the game (27 this year).

Looking at those lists it is hard to judge. I think Essendon has the best batch of 100+ gamers, but in the 50-100 and 25-50 games group is it tricky to see who is coming along the best as all sides have strengths and weaknesses. That is probably the group that will dictate where the sides fall over the next few years, as the established older players (Harvey, Fletcher, Newman, etc) all fall off the club lists.

Stanton's vastly under-rated. Still.
He's Essendon's 2nd or 3rd best; would be Melbourne's best, North's 2nd best and Richmond's 3rd best midfielder. Year in, year out.
Cue "oh but X, Y, Z will all be better, in year 2XYZ... elite yabber yabber Boooed blah blah".
How he gets constantly over-looked baffles me, but generally tells you who is and who isn't worth listening to - and who is merely going off 2nd hand opinions.

Very good player is very good; and very much closer to "elite" than 95% of the league.

Click to expand...

Over rating Stanton a fair bit. I would take Moloney over him every day of the week and would have him on par with Jones. A good servicable player, but nothing more.

There are rougly 800 players in the league and you think Stanton is in the top 40? Laughable

Richmond have the best top shelf talent by far (Martin, Cotchin, Deledio, Rewoldt) with Vickery looking like a likely prospect, but the rest of their list drops off significantly after that in terms of quality. It's mediocre at best, and building to a premiership takes more then just 3 or 4 stars performing every week.

Essendon have one of the weaker midfields in the comp on paper. Watson is really carrying the team in a lot of ways because I don't see much upside in Howlett, Melksham, Prismall, McVeigh etc. After Watson who is a gun inside ball winner, the best of the rest would probadly be guys like Stanton, Hocking, Heppell and Zaharakis. They do have some very good talls with Hurley leading the way, but I don't the Dons seriously competing for a premiership with the state of their midfield.

Melbourne and North don't have the star power of Richmond or some of the talls of Essendon but they do have a more even spread of young talent that is showing improvement all the time. Both sides have very good ruck stocks, good midfield depth and some decent developing KPs. Overall, I feel Melbourne and North are in the best position to pounce in the next 5 or so years.

looking at each teams list and 2011 form and being as impartial as I can i see it like this:

Best Forward line: Essendon - Carlisle, hurley, crameri, hille, monfries. just need a good small forward or two. Dell'olio or colyer may be good enough. Jetta or davey aren't.
Richmond a close second.
Best Back line: Essendon - Fletcher(carlisle), pears, hibberd, dempsey, heppell, ryder. I would rather use ryder as our CHB than hooker but many would disagree.
Best rucks: Essendon - Hille, Ryder, Bellchambers, Daniher
Best Midfield: Richmond. Martin, Cotchin, Deledio, Foley etc.
Essendon a close second with Watson, Hocking, Stanton, Lonergan as the experienced and reliable ones. And I expect a lot of improvement from Melksham, Zaharakis, Heppell and Caddy. Depth from howlett, jetta, colyer, Kavanagh etc.

No because that would be illogical. I do believe however that Melbourne and North have better spread across the field with their younger developing players, but we'll see. Anything can happen in footy.

looking at each teams list and 2011 form and being as impartial as I can i see it like this:

Best Forward line: Essendon - Carlisle, hurley, crameri, hille, monfries. just need a good small forward or two. Dell'olio or colyer may be good enough. Jetta or davey aren't.
Richmond a close second.
Best Back line: Essendon - Fletcher(carlisle), pears, hibberd, dempsey, heppell, ryder. I would rather use ryder as our CHB than hooker but many would disagree.
Best rucks: Essendon - Hille, Ryder, Bellchambers, Daniher
Best Midfield: Richmond. Martin, Cotchin, Deledio, Foley etc.
Essendon a close second with Watson, Hocking, Stanton, Lonergan as the experienced and reliable ones. And I expect a lot of improvement from Melksham, Zaharakis, Heppell and Caddy. Depth from howlett, jetta, colyer, Kavanagh etc.